[cxdoo]

Our just finished competition for 'the best' Pentax lens was interesting to me more because of nods to less known (or harder to find, or more expensive...) lenses than for finding out what the ultimate winner will be. So I learn about FA*200 Macro, hear more about FA*85, and more or less reinforce my opinion about a slew of other lenses.

One thing that got me thinking is that, performance aside, some lenses are qualified as unique. As in, there is something about this particular lens that no other has, whether in Pentax or overall. So I'd like to find out why would that be so.

Lenses we talk about here are commercial (i.e. made to make money) products for retail (i.e. mass produced goods) market, and as such should be susceptible to market forces. If there is a great demand, more should be made and/or their price should rise until that demand is met. On other words, I assume there is no magic in lens manufacturing process and that every lens is reproducible**, if there is a financial incentive to do so.

So what's in a lens?

I'd say the list below covers most important parts of it (and if it doesn't please let me know what I missed):

* optical formula
* glass
* coatings
* focusing mechanism
* aperture mechanism
* image stabilization mechanism (if available)
* casing

1. Optical formula

This is what we see when patents are filed (and most of us don't understand it at all, apart from counting the elements/groups). But then, patents expire.
So what is there to stop company X from digging through old patents and copying successful/unique/whatever old glass for fun and profit? Is there somebody already doing this? Samyang maybe? These are all honest questions and I'd like if someone could chip in with some answers.

2. Glass

Apart form the exception below, I believe all players in retail market are capable of producing glass of similar quality at similar price points. If that's not the case, I'd like to hear more about it.

3. Coatings

This is supposedly Pentax's strength. But within Pentax lenses, why would a lens be unique due to coating?

4. Focusing/Aperture/IS/Casing

IMH(and maybe ignorant)O, these are more or less reproducible by every player on the market.


Now let's look at a specific example, say our winner, FA77. What is so special about this lens that it can't be matched? Or is it just the total package (including the price)? Why didn't company X already jump in with their knockoff (I suppose the patent is expired)?

Or the lens more famous for its Pentax uniqueness, FA31? Why can't, say, Nikon, make equivalent (or better, for whatever definition of better) lens?

And one final thought. I believe most hobbyists like myself see lenses as black boxes, oblivious of their lineage and common traits they share with other lenses. But common sense says most lenses are related to each other evolutionary. I believe it'd be interesting to hear what 'less special' lenses (if any) are related to most legendary ones, and whether our perception of them would be changed by this knowledge.


** The only exception to this I can think of: certain technological process is no longer available due to change in standards (banned chemical, safety risk and such).

[UncleVanya]

Registration distance would have some effect on optical formula I think which limits direct copies to those with similar requirements. Coatings are likely not defined very well in terms of process and chemistry to be easy to copy. All in all copying seems less fruitful than making the best designs your inspiration and your source material for ideas. Modern computer designs likely would not generate the same formulas as some classics. The same can be said of car suspensions, there are some fantastic examples from the 60's that defy expectations, but making them today with modern manufacturing techniques would be cost prohibitive. Then same could be true for some classic lenses.

[Na Horuk]

So what is there to stop company X from digging through old patents and copying successful/unique/whatever old glass for fun and profit? Is there somebody already doing this? Samyang maybe

Yes, like Bradshea stated, registration distance is a big deal. And image circle. This means that many old lens designs which are great, cannot be used for Pentax K, or they would at least need heavy modification. The other thing is that many of those older designs incorporate lens elements made out of materials, that are now prohibited (safety, etc.) or too costly (relative to what the competition is doing). And finally, film is very different from digital sensors. Digital sensors need a certain angle of incidence, they are slightly reflective, and they have a high resolution (unlike film, which is chemicals and not a bayer arrangement of dots). These things mean that many film lenses wouldn't perform as well on digital reviews, where (unfortunately) the most important thing is resolution. This means that fun, unique lens designs are no longer.. marketable.

But! I do agree that Pentax should use its rich history and maybe revamp some of the old designs. The FA limiteds need this, but the 50mm f1.2 lens would be sensible as well. 24mm f2.0, and many older designs like 28mm f3.5.

Edit: Oh and as far as I know, Samyang is using unique lens designs. There are many cases of collaborations and lenses being made for more than one brand. One case of a factory using another's patent are some Helios and Industar lenses, which are Zeiss patents, but made in the USSR.

[cxdoo]

Yes, like Bradshea stated, registration distance is a big deal. And image circle. This means that many old lens designs which are great, cannot be used for Pentax K, or they would at least need heavy modification. The other thing is that many of those older designs incorporate lens elements made out of materials, that are now prohibited (safety, etc.) or too costly (relative to what the competition is doing). And finally, film is very different from digital sensors. Digital sensors need a certain angle of incidence, they are slightly reflective, and they have a high resolution (unlike film, which is chemicals and not a bayer arrangement of dots). These things mean that many film lenses wouldn't perform as well on digital reviews, where (unfortunately) the most important thing is resolution. This means that fun, unique lens designs are no longer.. marketable

Bradshea and you make some good points, so I guess crossmount copying is not so easy/cheap. But what about remaking of K mount oldies goldies like FA*85?

Your last sentence implies that either
a) lens makers don't know what their customers want
b) what this community considers fun lenses is not popular opinion among all Pentax customers

I find that slightly paradoxical.

[tvdtvdtvd]

At any given time, each manufacturer is, for the most part, trying to satisfy market demand. For the present, that means a zoom
that's fast, sharp and cheap (inexpensive). Several of those demands are at odds, which is a large part of the reason multiple
lenses are developed rather than a single super lens, (ie, no-one has yet to offer a 10-300 f/1.4 that sells for $150).

To be sure, there are other, if lesser, market demands. Dedicated macro, small size, 'soft' lenses for portraits, etc. And to meet that
demand manufacturers fill out there range with various other offerings as they deem profitable.

I think 'unique' lenses come about accidentally when good design is able to meet those market demands within the limits of
current technology. Well, not quite accidentally, as that's a discredit to all the hard work that goes into R&D. There just isn't a magic
formula to guarantee that success, which is why R&D is often a big part of any tech company's budget.

[simon6z]

Guess what is unique about pentax is the design of lens which can keep it small and fast. Take a look at the FAs and DAs limited and you know others are sweating how did pentax do it though hahaha

[cxdoo]

I think 'unique' lenses come about accidentally when good design is able to meet those market demands within the limits of current technology. Well, not quite accidentally, as that's a discredit to all the hard work that goes into R&D.

You're on to something there. However limited availability or very high price add to this 'uniqueness' status, together with, say, niche position of the lens focal range in the market. It was very difficult for any 50 (and especially cheap one) to reach later stages of our competition.

[Zav]

Regarding the first point, just look up on Google something like "50mm double Gauss history" (you can start here as well: LensRentals.com - Lens Genealogy Part 1) to see that when a design is successful and copyright expires, companies will re-use it.

For point 2, I am not sure about that everybody has access to the same glass. Canon has some facilities to grow fluorite glass, has Ricoh access to this (or is willing to pay for it)? Cosina (or was it Sigma?) developed an expertise in molded aspheric lenses in the 90s and uses it a lot.

Coating wise, coating evolves, the 31 was the first lens to feature a "ghostless" coating, now we have the aero bright, HD or whatever coating. The manufacturer might decide to apply the coating to all the surfaces of your lens or not.

But at the end of day, I believe that the character of a lens has a lot to do with its designer. The FA43, FA77 and FA*85 have been designed by the same man: Jun Hirakawa. Not the 31.Talk to the Leicaist of lens designer, they have their favorite as well.
So why are companies not directly copying the design of another company? It might just be a matter of hego.

[UncleVanya]

Bradshea and you make some good points, so I guess crossmount copying is not so easy/cheap. But what about remaking of K mount oldies goldies like FA*85?

Your last sentence implies that either
a) lens makers don't know what their customers want
b) what this community considers fun lenses is not popular opinion among all Pentax customers

I find that slightly paradoxical.

Thanks for the complement.

As for the paradox of what was said, I didn't see it that way when I read it. I took it to mean that some of the fun/unique lenses that exist are not as useful on digital as they once were on film and also they may be difficult to manufacture due to cost or prohibited materials.

I also feel like enthusiasts will do post processing and other things that other market segments might not be willing to do to extract value out of older unique lenses that might make them unprofitable as a wider market item.

[cxdoo]

@Zav

That's a great link and one of the things I wanted to learn when starting this thread. Thanks a lot!

[Na Horuk]

Your last sentence implies that either a) lens makers don't know what their customers want b) what this community considers fun lenses is not popular opinion among all Pentax customers

i think these two apply.
Lens maker hopes to make lenses that will sell well, and while their philosophy is important, it must be secondary. Without sales, philosophy is lost anyway. So Pentax has to make lenses like DA 35mm f2.4, based on the FA 35mm f2.0, but cheaper to produce, while keeping most of the image quality. Same with DA 50mm f1.8 - this design can be traced back to M 50mm f1.7. Why Pentax doesn't currently sell 24mm, 28mm, 85mm and 135mm primes.. is quite the mystery. Many of us wish they would, but apparently Pentax doesn't see a profit, cannot afford it, or whatever their reasons are. But I was told a statistic some time ago, that most DSLRs that get bought these days are the cheap tier, and most of them never buy extra lenses. To me, this is astounding, since the main reason to buy a DLSR is to use various lenses! But I guess this is the state of the market, and Pentax has to deal with it

[Zav]

@Zav

That's a great link and one of the things I wanted to learn when starting this thread. Thanks a lot!

You will enjoy this read (not Pentax related) then: The Thousand and One Nights | Nikkor.com

[cxdoo]

I checked Bojidar Dimitrov's great page to see what lenses FA43 is related too. From what I see, there are several fifties with same number of elements.

K/A 50/1.2



K/M 50/1.4



and

A/F/FA 50/1.4




Of those, FA43 looks most similar to the last one to me.

FA43/1.9



Now it would be nice if someone who has one of the A/F/FA 50/1.4 and FA43/1.9 shared their opinion on similarities and differences between these lenses.

[savoche]

For some insights on lens coatings and other design matters I think this interview is worth the time watching. Thanks to @dosdan for finding the clip.

Youtu.be

Youtu.be

[bsamcash]

While all good answers, I would like to add a more facetious perspective: lenses today are made to satisfy charts, not photographers. While before a lens was praised for its character, now its praised for its DxO score.